For anyone sincerely and objectively seeking understanding of events in Ukraine around 2014, including Maidan, I would highly recommend watching the entire ‘Roses Have Thorns‘ series from Watchdog Media; a lengthy collection of contemporary news reports and video, without commentary. There is a playlist still available (for now) on YouTube.
However Maidan is presented, in 2014 an unrepresentative mob in Kiev caused an unconstitutional coup of an elected (by the entire population) government with the direct, overt support of the USA, the result of which was a counter-protest that was (laughably, considering how they got into power) declared by the ‘new government’ ‘illegal’ and ‘terrorist’ and ‘Putin-backed’ and which was itself brutally repressed (including on ethnic grounds) to such an extent that a state of civil war existed in Ukraine until 2022.
There is nothing ‘heroic’ about this and nothing to celebrate. Nor is it something that any country with ‘European values’ could and should have supported.
The change of government was undeniably unrepresentative. It was not the free expression or will of ‘the people.’ In a true democracy, a population that disagrees with the policies of their government, elect them out of power. There was nothing democratic about Maidan, and it was far from a peaceful transfer of power.
When extremists gain power (violently, as happened in Kiev in 2014) – it’s common that they are not driven by a desire to represent all citizens equally, otherwise they wouldn’t be extremists and would have sought political representation and power through democratic means; by definition they represent a ‘faction.’ Once in power the desires of that faction become paramount and those that disagree are repressed, often violently and murderously.
Despite widespread western public ignorance of events and feverish, disingenuous under-rug-sweeping from the western political class, the events and results of Maidan cannot be hidden; they are part of the historical record and the ramifications and consequences of the division sowed throughout Ukrainian society by that event and by that faction have directly contributed to the current conflict and the secession of large swathes of Ukraine.
A protest that devolves into violence attracts a response from the government, whether in London, Paris, Athens, wherever. Even if that government response is truly ‘disproportionate’ it does not gift protestors any right to enact a coup.
Had such levels of violence occurred in London, etc, the UK government would have been within rights (and duty, actually) to send in the military.
No democratic government can allow protests to devolve into such violence as was seen during Maidan. Not one. To pretend otherwise is to reach the point of untenable desperation and for what? The support of a biased ‘Pro-Ukraine’ narrative? That’s just daft… and it lessens any credibility for that perspective.
The oft-quoted basis for the ‘legality’ of the ousting of the government of Yanokovych is that he vacated his post and fled the country. However, Yanukovych did not leave the country until after the coup, and was merely declared to be ‘absent from his post’ despite saying publicly that he had not abandoned his position. But. Even if he had, he had reason to.
Yanukovych also had a deputy (Vilkul), empowered (under the constitution and in accordance with the legal requirements of that office) to deputise as Vice-President as required, so a coup on any basis of Yanukovych’s absence, remains unconstitutional.
If, under similar circumstances, a UK Prime Minister left Westminster, either for another part of the country or even for Paris, that does not change his position nor empower the violent London mob (or those opportunistic political hacks that chose to ‘side’ with the mob) to enact governmental change (aka a coup).
Another oft-quoted basis in support of the protestors is that the Berkut (and police) opened fire on the protestors. However, even before the shooting started, the level of protestor violence had reached such a pitch that I sincerely believe, had the same circumstances unfolded in Trafalgar Square, faced with the inability of the police to control the protests and with the lives of police clearly threatened, and state buildings being occupied and destroyed… the UK government would have sent in the Army.
Such a decision may have led to the downfall of a government… but in a legitimate manner and not as a result of mob rule.
As for the shootings themselves, there’s evidence of both sides opening fire and killing police/protestors. There’s no need to condone such horrendous death (and I most certainly do not) but to use those deaths as justification for a coup, or as a means by which to ‘legitimise’ the overthrow of a democratically-elected government is untenable, in my opinion.
Would a UK government (or French, or Greek, or whichever) allow protestors to burn police officers and turn them into human torches without response? Or allow police to be isolated and cornered and beaten up with chains, iron bars and bats, chairs and fire-extinguishers in stairwells (or wherever)? Without consequence? Really?
Don’t police have the legal right to defend their own lives? Under those circumstances ‘proportionate’ force, even in the UK, can include firearms.
Does a government has a duty of care towards their police? Should that duty, alongside their duty to control violent protests (in the protection of person and property and in defence of the laws of the land) be laid aside because the mob become too threatening, unlawful and violent?
Wouldn’t that facilitate mob rule?
The rights of protestors and to protest are one thing… but what was seen on Maidan devolved far beyond the peaceful, hand-holding, ‘we shall overcome’ protest those rights are enshrined to protect.
I’ve seen hours of footage of Maidan, including the protestors being killed. And I’ve seen protests throughout democratic countries, and am aware of historic protests that even included ‘massacres’ (such as at Peterloo in 1819).
The events of Maidan do not justify the ousting of a democratically-elected government… and would not do so in any western capital.
As I have said consistently since 2014, whether you support the aims of the protest (to reverse the signing of the EU deal) or not… it ultimately resulted in unrepresentative mob rule and the unconstitutional, violent overthrow of a democratically-elected government.
That is the foundation upon which all of the events from 2014 to 2022 is based.
For sake of argument, let’s assume pro-European ‘Trafalgar Protests’ were formed as a result of the Brexit vote, with the aim of the protestors being to pressure the UK Government to overturn the Brexit vote… and let’s assume that the Trafalgar Protests developed at an identical rate, over an identical timeframe, and involving an identical protest movement in terms of numbers and participants, as Maidan.
How might the UK Government initially respond to the Trafalgar protests? Would there have been a police presence at all? Would officers from multiple forces have been bussed in? Would tactical units have been deployed? Bearing in mind that Kiev was by far the focal point of protests but there were a significant number of protests elsewhere (let’s say Birmingham and Manchester were as large as 10-20,000).
Assuming an identical rate/escalation of violence, do you think the UK police would have donned riot gear etc? Would these have been deployed passively, or aggressively? Would the UK police seek to protect government buildings etc? If so, how? Would there have been any ‘heavier’ asset use deployed? Water cannon, and protected vehicles beyond the caged van type, I mean. Police air assets? Any ‘aggressive arrests?’
Assuming UK police began to lose control due to rising levels of violence – and organised/semi-organised ‘thuggish right-wing ultra-national groups’ began to increase in number, and police casualties mounted, as they did during Maidan, and footage of extreme violence against police were being beamed across UK broadcast media, including police officers being torched with Molotovs, how would the UK Government have responded?
How supportive of the protestors do you believe the UK public would have been? How supportive of the Government? How might this support fluctuate, if at all?
Would the UK Government have acquiesced to the demands of the protestors and overturned Brexit? And if they attempted to do so only to find that the protestors had increased their demands further, would the UK Government have resigned, leaving a new Government to cancel Brexit to appease and de-escalate?
Would the UK Government at any time deploy the army?
How might the UK Government have responded to the presence of serving Russian political figures, urging the protestors to ‘keep on resisting,’ giving speeches of support and unity between the protestors and the Russian Federation, to the protestors/rioters in Trafalgar Square?
Could a solution have been found, stemming from Maidan, other than the removal of Yanukovych’s government?
Speaking personally, I’m a supporter of referenda on vital topics that have not been covered in any election manifesto or pre-election policy documents and believe they are the most direct and true democratic method I can think of, and as close to sitting on the Pnyx as possible. Not perfect, but infinitely more reflective of the will of an entire population than partisan mob rule.
Brexit itself is a good example of government, political and media consensus being unaligned with the public will and – given how close the support for each view was – referenda the most fair method of making the right democratic choice. On a side note, it was interesting to see who didn’t want the public to decide (aka democracy)… and who have been howling ever since over the Brexit result… those that think they know what’s best and seek to enforce their perspective and solutions.
But I digress…
The organisers of Maidan were after more than a mere referendum on whether to sign the EU deal or not. I think they were insistent and that nothing short of joining the EU would have satisfied them. As results clearly showed. Had the issue gone to a referendum, it would have been as close a divide as Brexit, I think… but the Maidan organisers would not have tolerated a result in support of Yanukovych.
Which is perhaps why the US were so involved (itself utterly despicable and deplorable and the kind of direct interference in a foreign country that they themselves would never have tolerated in a million years, the hypocrites).
As I’ve said, given similar developments, I honestly believe the UK Government would have sent the army in. Ditto the US. And my own personal view is that any democracy cannot tolerate this level of internal violent threat or external country interference.
The levels of hypocrisy among those that have the gall to inflate (zero) Russian ‘interference’ and yet themselves openly incite mob rule over actual democracy… as though mob rule IS democracy… in a foreign country, whenever it suits their narrative, of course, turns my stomach.
Democracy is the ballot box, pure and simple… it’s certainly not the molotov, steel bar and bullet.
Violent mobs do not have the right to claim victimhood nor any ethical or moral high-ground, especially when they are attempting to undemocratically force their own will on a population. The extremist, ultranationalist element of Maidan is unrepresentative but significant. It wasn’t just the police that lost control of the mob, it was also the protestors.
And what followed the installation of ‘our guy’ Yats (and the rest) thanks to Maidan… appalling and consequential.
Maidan and January 6th. It’s illuminating to compare the rhetoric and narrative of Maidan to the events in the US known as the ‘insurrection’ with the reality.
Finally, given that Ukraine is, in reality, no closer to joining the EU than back in 2014 (other than the paper-shuffling, ofc) and that thanks to the current state of the country after almost two years of war… let alone the deaths from the Kiev-inspired Donbas ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’ and that the current conflict has yet to play out fully… Ukraine haven’t got a blue snowball cat’s chance in a frozen hell moon of ever joining the EU. Or NATO, come to that.
Maidan, in context, at the time and with hindsight, was destructive in the extreme for Ukraine.
And Russia had nothing to do with it.